Would anyone have an idea of the Rand value of the funds currently collectively invested in the SETAs and the NSF that could be regarded as lying idle when there is such a urgent need for funded skills development with well run programmes?
I am very concerned at the lack of information from some of the SETAs as to what their policies are for funding or encouraging funding of the higher NQF levels, 7 and up. I get the impression that SETAs seem to exist with the main aim of applying their own bureacracy and systems. What are the performance metrics of the SETAs? How do they judge whether they are successful? I recently attended an event where all the delegates that had employed electricians said that they would not accept the MERSETA training and the standard was unacceptable. The MERSETA response was “we expect you to check them yourself when you get them to judge if they are acceptable!!!”
Are the skills development funds accumulating or is the spend rate balanced with the income rate? Clearly some buffer needs to remain ………..who has the stats?

6 thoughts on “Value invested in the SETAs and the NSF”

Cannot say I follow Mazilazila’s comments. The original query was what is the value of the funds that are available for structured training either via WSPs and the SETAs or discretional grants, a query raised by many observers other than me, that may be lying in an investment state rather than being used for the purposes for which they were intended? As a citizen I guess we have the right to ask what the measure of success is for a SETA. Let’s take the LGSETA. We know of very poor levels of competence in municipalities and local government on matters such as sanitation and water management as a case in point, and service delivery failures are a hot topic and becoming even more evident. Surely this points to the skills levels or lack thereof in the organisations that are meant to provide the observable results. We talk of outcomes based asessments and how wonderful this process is for SA and so am using this methodology to assess the performance of local government in this example, but its apparent successes are not evident to me as a citizen and to just about everyone else with whom this issue is raised. If in fact there is unused capacity in the funds that could be put to better use, then any efforts to do that is being positive That’s MY take.

Very interesting observation but it seem to lack objectivity. You seem to know these millions that are unutilised somewhere, can you assist with the details and maybe why they are not used as intended then i will viwe your comments as being factual. Secondly the SETA’s have SLA with dept of labour informed by NEDLAC agreements where employesr are an intergral part of and the Minister manages and monitors these through NSA where employers and unions are a represented and at some stage we must take responsibility for not not doing what we are supposed to at crucial times than to easily critic the government at any opportunity that we get or we might end up being arm chair-critic. the government has adopted an inclusive approach and lets all do and play our positive role. Thats my take.

Hi Chris
This is a very interesting discussion. I agree about standards being too low. A operate in the motion picture business and have often complained about the Mapppseta’s low standards. There are few standards registered on the NQF for the film industry in our country, other than those common to other fields. I have constantly striven for the acceptance of the British SkillSet http://www.skillset.org in South Africa. These are amongst the best I have ever seen and are based on three distinct levels: Assistance, Operations and Directing. More than 100 jobs are listed on SkillSet and it might be interesting to all readers of this blog to discover the many uses of these standards, one of which is career guidance.
I am currently running a series of skills based workshops whttp://www.capefilmworkshops.blogspot.com and would appreciate comments on attracting funding for previously disadvantaged people in a field where there are no NQF worthwhile standards.

Thanks Sylvia for your comments. One more question: do programme providers training for a qualification registered on SAQA, say a level 4 which is based on unit standards, all have their accreditation done by the CHE, and their training college/institute registered with the DoE before the courses qualify for funding by SETA or the NSF?

Hi Chris,
Interesting questions – One way to put them together for yourself is to get hold of every Annual Report.
I’ve just received the Foodbev one and been through the numbers. I have a few questions, but they are a very good Seta & well-controlled financially. When they have money invested, it is because they have committed it to projects & if for some reason all their discretionary funds are not used, they quickly put in extra small projects to mop it up.
Their Auditor General report was clear – which they have had for 8 years.
From their Financial Statements, I can tell you that in the 2008/9 year they have Total assets of R141,462,000 and Total net assets of R118,707,000.
They received R5.9m from the NSF for their Scarce Skills Project.
Regarding the spend rate versus income, my understanding is that the DoL will claw back underspend/uncommitted monies, and the levy grant refunds should be repaid quarterly. That is according to one of the Regulations, which I can check if you require.
Regarding performance evaluation, they evaluate performance against their Service Level Agreement with the DoL (from 1 Nov DHET), those numbers are basically the NSDS targets divided up amongst the Setas. I suggest that you also look at Group SetaVoice that I created – you will find some interesting insight from the presentations. Have a look also at the Background, Commissions & Summary Reports discussion.